Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483205 --- Comment #23 from Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-09 09:53:33 EDT --- Okay, here's the review. Just 3 small things and we'll be good to go (lines beginning with non-* need attention; others are fine and just listed for brevity). Thanks! X BuildRequires are proper - do we need a BR/R on SystemTap itself? What about kernel-devel? X make sure lines are <= 80 characters - please wrap line 29 (the pdebuild call) with '\' characters ? macros fine - it would be nice if you s/$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{buildroot}/ but it's not the end of the world * package is named appropriately * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * specfile name matches %{name} * md5sum matches upstream * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. * correct buildroot * %{?dist} used correctly * license text included in package and marked with %doc * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output * changelog format okay * Summary tag does not end in a period * no PreReq * specfile is legible * package successfully compiles and builds on x86_64 (but is correctly noarch) * summary and description fine * specfile written in American English * no -doc sub-package necessary * not native, so no rpath, static linking, etc. * no config files * not a GUI app * no -devel necessary * install section begins with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} * no translations so no locale handling * no Requires(pre,post) * package not relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates * file permissions fine * %clean present * %doc files do not affect runtime * not a web app * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs - these look good to me * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs => no output * package includes license text in the package and marks it with %doc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review